Hi Andrew,
>From reading your proposal, I really like this idea. I did not got around
to trying django-channels yet, but it will in August when I start a new
project (it's a PoC, so I can try out new stuff :). I hope to be able to
give you more feedback then!
Thanks so far,
Tino
On Thu, Jul 2,
I finally found your proposal yesterday and I REALLY think this is the
right step forward for Django. Implementing this mindset for one of my
current projects I can already see how I could more easily add realtime
stuff, and rewrite much of the signaling to make the code easier to reason
about.
Hi Andrew,
i have been taking a look at your work because I find it interesting and I
also think that django should have some core mechanism for integrating
websockets.
I was wondering, have you also tried one of the other popular django
websocket apps? Have you found any interesting one that
The only threading is when you're using runserver - normally I'd suggest
this is a multi-process model instead.
In my view, they already are namespaced, as well; the communication/socket
channels live under django.wsgi and django.websocket prefixes, whereas the
custom ones don't (perhaps we could
It might be a better idea to set the task-pool and intersocket--async into
two namespaces. It would become confused if we put them together under the
"Channel". Like in Java, Channel is like a wrapped-socket, but here in
django-channel, it also means a task queue.
On 17 June 2015 at 23:40, BearXu
Sorry, I haven't read the source code. But I basically read the doc. Thus
in a multithreaded env, we will use Redis or something to implement the one
to one chat function, am I right?
Thus people might be confused with the different channels' definitions.
On 16 June 2015 at 08:51, Andrew Godwin
The in-memory backend is not meant to enable any new functionality, just
allow things to run in-place as it currently works - any cross-socket
communication would be disabled in that mode. You can already see this in
my beta code - trying to run the WebSocket or Worker processes in memory
mode will
Personally I don't agree with implementing the Channel using in-memory mode
first. Writing code to communicate among sockets will become very
difficult for me(ordinary developer). If we see async in Django as a tool
instead of a coding style, I think Redis/NoSql/Database backend/ is good
enough as
Hello everyone,
I've been formulating a plan to decouple Django from the request-response
cycle for a couple of years now and after discussing it with some people at
DjangoCon Europe I thought it was high time that I actually wrote it up,
wrote some code, and solicited feedback.
So here it is. Th
